Monday, September 7, 2015

How would proportional representation work in Northern Ontario?

How would proportional representation work in Northern
Ontario, for federal elections?

I’m not talking about classic “list-PR” with candidates
appointed by central parties, which no one proposes for Canada.

I’m talking about the model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada,
where every Member of Parliament represents actual voters and real communities.
Local ridings will elect the majority of
MPs as we do today. The others are elected as regional MPs, topping-up the numbers of MPs from your region so the total
is proportional to the votes for each party. You can cast a personal vote for the regional candidate you prefer.

These regional MPs are elected from regions small enough that the
regional MPs are accountable; maybe about 12 MPs per region.

So this is no longer an academic discussion. This is a practical
discussion: if Canada gets PR, how would it work in Northern Ontario?

Mixed Proportional

With the Mixed Proportional system, you have two votes.
With one, you help elect a local MP as we do today. The majority of MPs would
still be local MPs.

With the other vote, you can vote for the party you want to see in
government, and for your favourite of your party’s regional candidates. So you
help elect a few regional MPs, topping-up the local results to make them match
the vote shares. Every vote counts: it’s proportional. You can vote for the regional
candidate you prefer: it’s personal. There are no closed lists. Voters elect
all the MPs.

Consultations

After the October 19 election, Canada will very
likely see a 12-month public consultation process by a special all-party task force or parliamentary
committee with a mandate to consult
experts and ordinary Canadians, and bring recommendations to Parliament, likely
including the best design for a mixed-member proportional system.

Competing MPs
Every voter will be served by competing MPs. You could choose to go to your
local MP for service or representation, or you could go to one of your regional MPs, likely including someone you helped elect.

Accountable MPs

This open list method was recommended both by our Law Commission and
by the Jenkins Commission in the
UK. Jenkins’ colourful explanation accurately predicted why closed lists would be rejected in
Canada as they were in the Ontario and PEI referendums: additional members locally
anchored are “more easily assimilable into the political culture and
indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds
clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions.”

Every vote counts. Fair Vote
Canada says "A democratic voting system must encourage citizens to exercise positive choice by voting for the candidate or party they prefer."

Each province still has the same number of MPs it has today. No constitutional amendment is needed.
Fair Vote Canada says “We must give rural and urban voters in every
province, territory and regional community effective votes and fair
representation in both government and opposition.”

More people would
vote, and vote differently

As Prof. Dennis Pilon says: "Now
keep in mind that, when you change the voting system, you also change the
incentives that affect the kinds of decisions that voters might make. For
instance, we know that, when every vote counts, voters won't have to worry
about splitting the vote, or casting a strategic vote. Thus, we should expect
that support for different parties might change."

And when every vote counts, turnout will be higher
-- perhaps 7% higher. So, when voters have more
choice, the results will be far more representative of our diverse population
and their diverse views. Who can say
what would be the result of real democratic elections?

One thing we know for sure: it is extremely
unlikely that voters would vote exactly as they did in 2011.Meanwhile, I’ve done simulations on the votes cast
in 2011.

Northern Ontario’s nine MPs

In 2011 Northern Ontario voters (north of the
French River) elected six NDP MPs and three Conservative MPs. Yet those voters
cast only 44% of their votes for New Democrats, while 33% voted Conservative, 20%
Liberal, and 3% Green. If every vote counted equally, on those votes NDP voters
would elect four MPs, Conservative voters three MPs, and Liberal voters two. (For
the calculation, see technical footnote below.)

Since I’m projecting from the 2011 votes, I’ll start with the 2011
candidates. Let’s suppose the six local MPs were (depending on local nominations in six larger ridings) New Democrats Charlie
Angus, Claude Gravelle, Carol Hughes, and John Rafferty, and Conservatives Greg
Rickford and Jay Aspin.

The regional MPs for each party would be the
party’s regional candidates who ended up with the most support across the region. In this
case, Liberal voters would elect two regional Liberal MPs. maybe Nipissing’s
Anthony Rota (who got 15,477 votes in 2011) and Sault Ste. Marie’s Christian
Provenzano (8,343) or Sudbury’s Carol Hartman (8,172) or Thunder Bay’s Ken Boshcoff
(8,067).

Conservative voters would elect one regional MP. Many would have
preferred Greg Rickford or Jay Aspin, but
assuming they already won local seats, the regional seat would go to the next
most popular. In other words, Conservative voters whose top preference was notGreg Rickford or Jay Aspin could, if they wish, elect the regional
Conservative MP. Maybe they would have elected Sault Ste.
Marie’s Bryan Hayes (who got 18,328 votes in 2011 and was actually elected that
year by a slim margin) or their only female candidate, Sudbury’s Lynne Reynolds
(she got 12,503 votes in 2011, but would get more from across the North.).

What would regional MPs do?

How would regional MPs operate? They would cover
several ridings each. Just the way it’s done in Scotland.
They could have several offices, just as MP Jay Aspin has offices in both North
Bay and New Liskeard.

Regional candidates

How would party members nominate and rank a group
of regional candidates? It could be done on-line, and with live conventions.
Likely party members in each region would decide to nominate the same
candidates already nominated in the local ridings, and some additional regional
candidates.

In Nova Scotia in 2011, in all 11 ridings the
Liberals nominated only men. Additional provincial candidates would surely have
included some women. Since polls show 90% of Canadians want to see more women
elected, we’ll elect women when given the chance.

But voters will have the final say, since they can vote for their party’s regional candidate
they prefer. Or they can vote for the list as ranked by the party’s nomination
process.

How many local MPs?

In my 2011 simulation, I made each top-up region
have at least 57.5% of its MPs as local MPs. On average across Canada, 62.7% of the MPs will be local MPs. The 335
MPs from the ten provinces will be 210 local MPs and 125 regional or provincial MPs.

More choice

With two votes, you can vote for the party you want
in government. And you can also vote for the local candidate you like best
regardless of party, without hurting your party, since it's the second
(regional) ballot that determines the party make-up of the House of Commons.
About 32% of voters split their ballots this way in New Zealand with a similar
system.

Local MPs become more independent

This makes it easier for local MPs to get the
support of people of all political stripes. They can earn support for their
constituency-representation credentials, not just for their party. This boosts
the kind of support MPs bring with them into the House of Commons, thus
strengthening their independence.

As Stéphane Dion says "I
no longer want a voting system that gives the impression that certain parties
have given up on Quebec, or on the West. On the contrary, the whole spectrum of
parties, from Greens to Conservatives, must embrace all the regions of Canada.
In each region, they must covet and be able to obtain seats proportionate to
their actual support. This is the main reason why I recommend replacing our
voting system."

This is not a partisan scheme. Unrepresented Conservative voters would
have elected eight more Quebec MPs than in 2011, one more in Newfoundland, one more in
PEI, and one more on Vancouver Island.

Of course, proportional representation would mean a lot for Canada. We
would not likely have a one-man one-party government whose PMO holds all the
power. (The last Prime Minister to get more than 50% of the votes was Brian
Mulroney in 1984.) Parliament would reflect the diverse voters of every
province.

Power to the voters

An exciting prospect: voters have new power to elect who they like. New
voices from new forces in Parliament. No party rolls the dice and wins an
artificial majority. Cooperation will have a higher value than vitriolic
rhetoric. Instead of having only a local MP -- whom you quite likely didn’t
vote for -- you can also go to one of your diverse regional MPs, all of whom
had to face the voters. Governments will have to listen to MPs, and MPs will
have to really listen to the people. MPs can begin to act as the public
servants they are. And all party caucuses will be more diverse.

“When you empower people, it’s incredible what can be achieved”

As Tom Mulcair has written “In a study that
looked at 36 countries with proportional representation, countries that
reformed their systems saw increased voter turnout, more women and minorities
elected and an overall higher satisfaction with democracy. Furthermore,
countries with proportional representation also score higher on indicators of
health, education and standards of living. They are more likely to enjoy fiscal
surpluses and have healthier environmental policies, economic growth and
decreased income inequality.

“It may seem shocking that a change in electoral system can fuel such
dramatic changes, but when you empower people, it’s incredible what can be
achieved. By responding to and reflecting a broader pool of interests and
people, proportional elections lead to governments that are not based on one
single partisan worldview or a narrow segment of society. Proportional
governments represent a broader cross-section of society; as a result, the
policies they pass tend to be more credible, stable and based on the common
good.”

Winner-take-all results across Canada

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all
results on the new 2015 boundaries for the 338 ridings would be 187
Conservative, 110 NDP, 36 Liberal, 4 Bloc, and 1 Green.

In my simulation, after adjustments due to 62.7%
local seats, the results for 338 MPs are: Conservative 139, NDP 108, Liberal
64, BQ 17, Green 10. Close to perfect, while keeping all MPs accountable to real local and regional
communities, and keeping 62.7% of the
MPs as local MPs.

Poll results on proportional representation
Environics asked in 2013 “Some people favor bringing in a form of proportional
representation. This means that the total number of seats held by each party in
Parliament would be roughly equivalent to their percentage of the national
popular vote. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or
strongly oppose moving towards a system of proportional representation in
Canadian elections?”

Interviewing for this Environics National Telephone
Survey was conducted between March 18th – 24th, 2013, among a national
random sample of 1,004 adults. The margin of error for a sample of this size is
+/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.

Result: support 70%, oppose 18%, depends 6%, don’t know 6%.

The Environics poll showed 93% of Green voters support proportional
representation while 4% oppose; 82% of NDP voters support it while 11% oppose;
77% of Liberal voters support it while 15% oppose; 62% of Conservative
supporters support it while 28% oppose; and 55% of voters undecided as to party
support PR while 19% oppose and 27% said “don’t know” or “depends.”

1. How does the math work? In my Northern
Ontario example, on the votes cast in 2011, NDP voters were entitled to 3.96
MPs, Conservative voters to 2.97 MPs, Liberals 1.79, and Greens 0.28. After the
first six MPs are calculated, the next “highest remainder” is the Conservatives’
0.97, so they get the seventh MP, the NDP the eighth, and the Liberals the
ninth. If 17,800 more new voters had voted for the Green Party, they would have
taken the ninth seat from the Liberals, electing an MP such as North Bay’s Dr. Scott Daley.2. The rounding method used in the
simulation is highest remainder, for the same reason the Ontario Citizens
Assembly chose it: it's the simplest. Germany used to use this too, on the
premise that it offset the risk to proportionality of their 5% threshold.
Similarly it offsets smaller region sizes across Canada.

3. With only 37.3% of the MPs as compensatory (“top-up”) MPs,
there is no guarantee that the result will be perfectly proportional. In Quebec
in 2011 the “Orange Wave” was so extreme that this model lets NDP voters elect
38 MPs rather than the 35 they deserve, at the cost of the Bloc (two MPs short)
and the Conservatives (one). If one party swept all six local seats in Northern
Ontario, the three regional MPs might not be enough for perfect proportionality.
Adding regional MPs, while keeping the House the same size, means
larger local ridings. It’s a trade-off: the higher the proportion of regional MPs,
the larger are the local ridings. But the lower the proportion of regional
MPs, the greater the risk that they are too few to compensate for the
disproportional local results.

4.Many design details must be decided, after public consultations. For example, smaller regions are intended to be “moderately”
proportional, less likely to elect MPs from smaller parties like the Greens.
But in return, they provide better geographic representation, and more
accountable regional MPs.

About Me

Although I am a member of Fair Vote Canada's Council at the federal level, the views expressed on this blog are my own.
I have been a lawyer since 1971, an elected school trustee from 1982 to 1994, past chair of the Board of the Northumberland Community Legal Centre, and so on.